Pacific County Sheriff's Deputy Jesse Eastham was terminated from his position effective April 4, 2022, as the result of an independent investigator's report where Eastham violated multiple policies within the Sheriff's Department.
Since the middle of October 2021, Eastham had been on paid administrative leave. This action was the result of an investigation into Eastham's actions and conduct while on duty.
Eastham was issued a lengthy Brady Letter by former Pacific County Prosecutor Benjamin Haslam on January 13, 2021, before his administrative leave. A Brady Letter means that the testimony of the officer is under suspicion and that the officer was caught being less than truthful in the past. There are pending cases that are under scrutiny currently because they are based mainly on Eastman's testimony.
Pacific County's Sheriff Robin Souvenir sent Eastham a letter of termination this April outlining the reasons for his termination. This letter was sent to the Herald after a public records request.
"This memorandum sets forth my decision to terminate your employment effective April 4, 2022, based upon the results of an independent investigation to the allegations of misconduct," Souvenir stated in the letter.
Deputy Eastham's handling and accounting of assigned narcotic training aids.
According to the letter, Eastham was recorded on camera entering the Drug Task Force (DTF) office and searching through the evidence stored there. "He created several narcotic training aids by combining the received narcotics."
Eastham claims in the letter, "We had borrowed a couple from the Raymond Police Department, and then the other training aids that were made came from our evidence." He claims that his instructor trained him that way during class. "I just kinda followed that guidance," he said. "I was just goin' off what I was trained."
"The PCSO Policy 317.11.6 states," according to the letter. "All controlled substance training samples shall be returned to the dispensing agency upon the conclusion of the training or upon demand by the dispensing agency."
The letter continues stating that Eastham did not document or write an incident report about the creation of the training aids where the narcotics from both agencies were combined which made their return difficult or impossible.
Deputy Eastham's failure to follow direction regarding forwarding narcotic-related intelligence/information to the Drug Task Force and handling narcotic-related seizures and intended forfeitures.
According to the letter, Eastham had a pattern of behavior where he failed to comply with the direction of supervisors to forward narcotics-related information to the DTF.
Deputy Eastham's unauthorized entrance into and behavior while inside the DTF Office.
The findings of the investigation stated in the letter, "Eastham's actions and behavior are above and beyond the behavior of one who is merely looking for a piece of equipment in a secure office." Eastham had claimed to be looking for the Cellebrite equipment, which the PCSO does not store in the DTF office.
"I do not find Eastham's statements made to supervisory personnel regarding his actions and behavior inside the DTF office credible," said Souvenir in the letter. "Selective recall, internal inconsistencies, ambiguity, and negation provided in his response to questions related to his reason for entering the DTF office and his behavior while inside, are deceptive and a lack of plausible reasoning."
The integrity of Deputy Eastham's supplemental report related to the "Cherry Street Warrant."
"Police officers/deputies have a sworn duty to report accurate and detailed information justifying their actions," stated the letter. "Eastham's supplemental narrative and information in follow-up interviews regarding the Cherry Street warrant are inconsistent, misleading, and lack material information."
The letter explains how the eyewitness accounts of the officers present during the search for evidence differ from Eastham's account. The accounts explain that Eastham handled and moved the evidence. Eastham was asked about his actions during the Cherry Street warrant, according to the letter, "Eastham's responses became more ambiguous, omitted relevant facts, understated the importance of his actions, and laced with indicators of deception."
During a Loudermill hearing, held on March 22, 2022, Eastham was provided with the opportunity to present additional information for consideration. He failed to provide new information.
The letter states, "The Pacific County Sheriff's Office identifies Trustworthiness as 'one of the most important ethical values and includes qualities such as honesty, integrity, reliability, and loyalty. ... The esteem the community holds for the Pacific County Sheriff's Office is based squarely on each member's honesty, integrity, reliability, and loyalty.'"
"The Ethical Value Responsibility is defined, in part, as incorporating 'qualities such as accountability, self-restraint and the pursuit of excellence,'" the letter said. "'We must accept responsibility for our action, as well as in action while on duty or off duty when what we do brings disrepute on the image of the Pacific County Sheriff's Office and fellow members.'"
"This is not a case where additional training may assist you in improving performance deficiencies," said Souvenir in the letter. "Rather, the Investigator's Report demonstrates a consistent failure to provide truthful, complete and accurate information. I no longer have the trust and confidence in your ability to represent this Office and therefore have made the decision to terminate your employment for just cause in accordance with Article 11 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement."
The letter closes with the request that Eastham return all equipment issued by the sheriff's office be returned.